Legal Opinion

Medina v. Medina

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1954PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrenner, J.

Defendant asks dismissal of this complaint as legally insufficient. The pleading recites two causes of action. Being opposed generally the motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice must be denied if either states a proper cause of action (Halstead v. General Ry. Signal Co., 268 App. Div. 1060).

Relevant facts as asserted in the first cause of action show that the parties are husband and wife and that they lived together as such until May, 1951; that in October, 1946, certain described real property was conveyed to them; that up to May, 1954, plaintiff “ was compelled to and did…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hiles v. . FisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Hosford v. HosfordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  3. Minion v. . WarnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  4. Vollaro v. VollaroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
  5. Maekotter v. MaekotterNew York Supreme Court · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kraus v. HuelsmanNew York Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Leis v. ShaughnessyNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Community Bank, National Assoc. v. Lyons (In Re Lyons)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · 1994
  4. Awramenko v. AwramenkoNew York Supreme Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API